Informatica LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 23, 20212020000279 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/708,146 05/08/2015 Mohan Sankaran 16-30025-US-2 1168 139791 7590 06/23/2021 Reed Smith LLP P.O. Box 488 (358838) Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0488 EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): gdonovan@reedsmith.com ptoipinbox@reedsmith.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MOHAN SANKARAN, ANDREW COMSTOCK, KIRAN BAGEPALLI, GAUTAM H. MUDUNURI, AKIN DIRIK, FRANK BEIER, MOHINI WETTASINGHE, and IVAN CHONG ____________ Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 11, 15, and 30–47, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Informatica, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to “computer executed methods for displaying data extracted from data sources in a data viewing and editing environment, and generating suggestions for refinement of data presentations.” Spec. ¶ 2. A data profiling module is configured to receive multiple spreadsheets and create a single composite spreadsheet. The data profiling module receives a user selection of multiple spreadsheets and reads the spreadsheets from a storage device. Typically a spreadsheet has data records arranged in rows, with columns containing different attributes or fields of data. The profiling module extracts the data from the selected spreadsheets and profiles the data with respect to data types and attributes of the data. At least one matching column is identified among the selected spreadsheets. The data profiling module calculates a match metric for the at least one matching column, and unifies the spreadsheets into a single composite spreadsheet using the at least one identified matching column. A preview view of a composite spreadsheet is generated, visually indicating the at least one matching column, any non-matching columns between the spreadsheets, and the match metric for the matching columns. Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A computer-executed method for previewing a composite data set, comprising: retrieving from one or more sources first and second data sets; formatting the first and second data sets into a plurality of columns of data values; profiling the data values from the first and second data sets to identify data types and data domains for the plurality of columns of data values; Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 3 identifying at least one column of the first data set matching at least one column of the second data set based on the profiling; calculating a match metric for the at least one column matched between the first and second data sets; unifying the first and second data sets using the at least one column and a unifying action, wherein the unifying action is determined based on an overlap between the first data set and the second data set; generating a preview view of the composite spreadsheet showing the first and second data sets unified using the at least one column prior to committing the unifying of the first and second data sets into the composite spreadsheet, the preview view visually indicating the at least one column matched between the first and second data sets, a plurality of non- matching columns among the first and second data sets, and the match metric; and in response to receiving an indication from a user, committing the unifying of the first and second data sets into the composite spreadsheet. References and Rejection2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1–9, 11, 15, 30–47 103 McEvoy (US 2012/0173226 A1, pub. July 5, 2012), Raman (Potter’s Wheel: An Interactive Data Cleaning System, 2001), Weinberg (US 2002/0116417 A1, pub. Aug. 22, 2002), Criss (US 9,477,703 B1, issued Oct. 25, 2016). 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Non-Final Office Action dated July 9, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated June 10, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 13, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated Oct. 14, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 4 ANALYSIS3 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has not provided the required rationale for combining the teachings of McEvoy and Raman to teach “formatting the first and second data sets into a plurality of columns of data values; profiling the data values from the first and second data sets to identify data types and data domains for the plurality of columns of data values,” as recited in independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 5–7. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Without any explanation as to . . . why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against . . . . [W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Further, the USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” and that articulation requirement “appl[ies] with equal force to the . . . motivation to combine analysis.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 5 When “motivation to combine . . . is disputed,” the USPTO “must articulate a reason why a PHOSITA would combine the prior art references.” Id. The Examiner cites the combination of McEvoy and Raman to teach “formatting the first and second data sets into a plurality of columns of data values; profiling the data values from the first and second data sets to identify data types and data domains for the plurality of columns of data values,” as recited in independent claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Ramen’s marshalling of data into a spreadsheet with McEvoy’s spreadsheet processing, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have allowed a user to marshal data into a spreadsheet, in order to determine matching contents within the data so that the data may be combined. Non-Final Act. 4. Appellant argues: Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, there would be no reason for a user of McEvoy to “marshal data into a spreadsheet” because this marshalling step would only delay the central function of the McEvoy, table merging with row reduction. As stated above, once tables are selected by the user for merging and row reduction and a directive is given by the user for merger, the merge logic is applied to the tables and a merged table is produced. See McEvoy, ¶ 16. There would be no benefit to, or rationale for, introducing an additional step of exporting the data into a spreadsheet, as alleged by the Examiner. Furthermore, it is unclear how the Examiner’s obviousness rationale relates to the proposed combination of features relied upon in McEvoy and Raman. In particular, the Examiner relies upon Raman as allegedly disclosing the recited limitations of “formatting the first and second data sets into a Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 6 plurality of columns of data values” and “profiling the data values from the first and second data sets to identify data types and data domains for the plurality of columns of data values.” However, the Examiner’s proposed motivation to combine these two references does not explain why one of ordinary skill would want to incorporate these features allegedly disclosed in Raman into the system of McEvoy. It is unclear how the features allegedly disclosed in Raman would allow users of the system of McEvoy to “marshall data into a spreadsheet,” particularly since the tables of McEvoy are already organized in columns. Appeal Br. 15–16. The Examiner responds: McEvoy discloses comparing table contents and merging matching columns while joining unmatched columns (paragraph 0008). However, examiner has previously indicated that McEvoy is not able to compare and other types of data (see: Office Action dated 9 July 2018, page 4). Ramen allows for obtaining streaming data from a database exposed via the ODBC (Open Database Connectivity) API (Section 2.1). This streaming data is then marshaled into a spreadsheet interface immediately, without waiting for the entirety of the data to be obtained, which “is important when transforming large datasets or never-ending data streams (Section 2.2).” This is an improvement on McEvoy, which is only capable of operating on spreadsheet contents, and not streaming contents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Ramen’s marshalling of data into a spreadsheet with McEvoy’s spreadsheet processing, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have allowed a user to marshal non-spreadsheet contents, such as data streams, into a spreadsheet, in order to determine matching/non-matching contents within the data so that data may be combined. This would have provided the user the additional advantage of removing redundant data from a stream, thereby allowing a user to conserve storage space. Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 7 Ans. 17–18. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided the requisite rationale for combing the teachings of McEvoy and Raman. See Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 5–7. In particular, the Examiner’s assertion that “[t]his is an improvement on McEvoy, which is only capable of operating on spreadsheet contents, and not streaming contents” (Ans. 17) contradicts the record, as McEvoy describes “[t]he tables can be populated with data from different data sources.” McEvoy ¶ 5. Because McEvoy already includes the feature of populating tables with data from different data resources, which may include streaming contents, the Examiner does not adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have modified McEvoy to add a redundant feature from Raman.4 Further, the Examiner does not adequately explain why “streaming contents” or “marshalling of data into a spreadsheet” (Ans. 17) are connected to the specific limitations of “formatting the first and second data sets into a plurality of columns of data values; profiling the data values from the first and second data sets to identify data types and data domains for the plurality of columns of data values,” as such limitations do not include streaming contents or marshalling data into a spreadsheet. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 424 (“[t]he proper question to have asked was whether a . . . designer of ordinary skill . . . would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a 4 If prosecution reopens, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether one skilled in the art would have seen the benefit of modifying McEvoy’s method to include the specific limitations from Raman, in order to provide more details associated with populating tables with data, and facilitate identifying matching data via profiling data values. Appeal 2020-000279 Application 14/708,146 8 [feature from the secondary reference]”). As a result, the Examiner has not provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” as required by KSR. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient support for the legal conclusion of obviousness, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–9, 11, 15, and 30–47 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9, 11, 15, and 30–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 11, 15, 30–47 103 McEvoy, Raman, Weinberg, Criss 1–9, 11, 15, 30–47 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation